public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13
@ 2013-11-26 17:54 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu
2013-11-26 18:17 ` [Bug target/59305] " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (34 more replies)
0 siblings, 35 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu @ 2013-11-26 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
Bug ID: 59305
Summary: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING:
program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu
The new gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c execution test fails on
x86_64-apple-darwin13 for all optimization levels...
Running
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc49-4.9.0-1000/gcc-4.9-20131126/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/atomic/atomic.exp
...
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c -O0 execution test
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c -O1 execution test
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c -O2 execution test
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer execution
test
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops execution test
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions execution test
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c -O3 -g execution test
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c -Os execution test
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none
execution test
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c -O2 -flto execution test
for gcc trunk at r205392 built with...
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-fsf-4.9
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/sw/lib/gcc4.9/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin13.0.0/4.9.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin13.0.0
Configured with: ../gcc-4.9-20131126/configure --prefix=/sw
--prefix=/sw/lib/gcc4.9 --mandir=/sw/share/man --infodir=/sw/lib/gcc4.9/info
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,lto,objc,obj-c++,java --with-gmp=/sw
--with-libiconv-prefix=/sw --with-isl=/sw --with-cloog=/sw --with-mpc=/sw
--with-system-zlib --enable-checking=yes --x-includes=/usr/X11R6/include
--x-libraries=/usr/X11R6/lib --program-suffix=-fsf-4.9
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131126 (experimental) (GCC)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread* [Bug target/59305] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu @ 2013-11-26 18:17 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-11-27 8:57 ` [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ` (33 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2013-11-26 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed| |2013-11-26 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> --- I see these failures on darwin10 as well when doing a serial regtesting. They disappear if the tests are run in parallel (-j2 on a Core2Duo and -j8 on a Core i7). If I run the test c11-atomic-exec-5.c manually, the run time varies from ~10s on a loaded machine up to more than 50 minutes on an idle one (hence the time out). Note that the test fails on powerpc*-*-*, e.g., on powerpc-apple-darwin9: float_add_invalid (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_add_invalid_prev (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_add_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_add_overflow_prev (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_add_overflow_double (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_add_overflow_long_double (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_add_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_add_inexact_int (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_preinc_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_postinc_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail long_add_float_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail complex_float_add_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_sub_invalid (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_sub_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_sub_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_sub_inexact_int (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_predec_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_postdec_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail long_sub_float_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail complex_float_sub_overflow (a) 4999 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 1 fail float_mul_invalid (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_mul_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_mul_underflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_mul_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_mul_inexact_int (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail long_mul_float_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail complex_float_mul_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_div_invalid_divbyzero (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_div_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_div_underflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_div_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail float_div_inexact_int (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail int_div_float_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail complex_float_div_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail double_add_invalid (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail double_add_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail double_add_overflow_long_double (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 4999 pass, 1 fail double_add_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 4999 pass, 1 fail double_add_inexact_int (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail double_preinc_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail double_postinc_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail long_long_add_double_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail complex_double_add_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail double_sub_invalid (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail double_sub_overflow (a) 5001 pass, 0 fail; (b) 4999 pass, 0 fail double_sub_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail double_sub_inexact_int (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 4999 pass, 1 fail double_predec_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail double_postdec_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail long_long_sub_double_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail complex_double_sub_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail double_mul_invalid (a) 4999 pass, 1 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail double_mul_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail double_mul_overflow_float (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail double_mul_underflow (a) 4999 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 1 fail double_mul_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail double_mul_inexact_int (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail long_long_mul_double_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 4999 pass, 1 fail complex_double_mul_overflow (a) 4999 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 1 fail double_div_invalid_divbyzero (a) 4999 pass, 1 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail double_div_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail double_div_underflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail double_div_inexact (a) 5001 pass, 0 fail; (b) 4999 pass, 0 fail double_div_inexact_int (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail int_div_double_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail complex_double_div_overflow (a) 4999 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5001 pass, 0 fail long_double_add_invalid (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail long_double_add_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 0 pass, 5000 fail complex_long_double_add_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 0 pass, 5000 fail long_double_sub_invalid (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail long_double_sub_overflow (a) 5001 pass, 0 fail; (b) 0 pass, 4999 fail complex_long_double_sub_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 0 pass, 5000 fail long_double_mul_invalid (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail long_double_mul_overflow (a) 5001 pass, 0 fail; (b) 4999 pass, 0 fail long_double_mul_overflow_float (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail long_double_mul_overflow_double (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 4999 pass, 1 fail long_double_mul_underflow (a) 4999 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 1 fail complex_long_double_mul_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 4999 pass, 1 fail long_double_div_invalid_divbyzero (a) 4999 pass, 1 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail long_double_div_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail long_double_div_underflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 4999 pass, 1 fail long_double_div_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail long_double_div_inexact_int (a) 4999 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 1 fail int_div_long_double_inexact (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail complex_long_double_div_overflow (a) 5000 pass, 0 fail; (b) 5000 pass, 0 fail ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-11-26 18:17 ` [Bug target/59305] " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2013-11-27 8:57 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-11-27 15:58 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com ` (32 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-11-27 8:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0 Summary|gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-ex |[4.9 Regression] |ec-5.c fails with WARNING: |gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-ex |program timed out on |ec-5.c fails with WARNING: |x86_64-apple-darwin13 |program timed out on | |x86_64-apple-darwin13 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-11-26 18:17 ` [Bug target/59305] " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-11-27 8:57 ` [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-11-27 15:58 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com 2013-12-16 20:43 ` howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (31 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2013-11-27 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> --- For powerpc see: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-11/msg00131.html - the failures indicate the architecture maintainers have not yet added this hook. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2013-11-27 15:58 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2013-12-16 20:43 ` howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-12-16 20:44 ` howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (30 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu @ 2013-12-16 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth <howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu> --- Created attachment 31451 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31451&action=edit preprocessed source for gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c -O0 on darwin12 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2013-12-16 20:43 ` howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu @ 2013-12-16 20:44 ` howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-12-16 20:46 ` howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (29 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu @ 2013-12-16 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth <howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu> --- Created attachment 31452 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31452&action=edit assembly file for gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c -O0 on darwin12 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2013-12-16 20:44 ` howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu @ 2013-12-16 20:46 ` howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-12-16 21:13 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ` (28 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu @ 2013-12-16 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth <howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu> --- Added preprocessed source and assembly file generated with... /sw/src/fink.build/gcc49-4.9.0-1000/darwin_objdir/gcc/xgcc -B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc49-4.9.0-1000/darwin_objdir/gcc/ /sw/src/fink.build/gcc49-4.9.0-1000/gcc-4.9-20131216/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c -B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc49-4.9.0-1000/darwin_objdir/x86_64-apple-darwin12.5.0/i386/libatomic/ -L/sw/src/fink.build/gcc49-4.9.0-1000/darwin_objdir/x86_64-apple-darwin12.5.0/i386/libatomic/.libs -latomic -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -O0 -std=c11 -pedantic-errors -pthread -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=200809L -lm -m32 -o ./c11-atomic-exec-5.exe --save-temps on x86_64-apple-darwin12. Can someone confirm that we have both support for floating-point exceptions and the required hook on darwin? If so, I suspect we are tickling a pthread bug on darwin. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (5 preceding siblings ...) 2013-12-16 20:46 ` howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu @ 2013-12-16 21:13 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-12-17 13:32 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ` (27 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2013-12-16 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> --- > on x86_64-apple-darwin12. Can someone confirm that we have both support > for floating-point exceptions and the required hook on darwin? I cannot answer these questions. > If so, I suspect we are tickling a pthread bug on darwin. But as said in comment 2, the test succeeds on a loaded machine, i.e., with -j=n, where n is the number of available threads. So I share the suspicion. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (6 preceding siblings ...) 2013-12-16 21:13 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2013-12-17 13:32 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-12-17 13:54 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ` (26 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2013-12-17 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> --- Created attachment 31458 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31458&action=edit reduced test case c11-atomic-exec_5.c reduced to the test of complex_long_double_add_overflow only. It takes between 35 to 40s on an unloaded machine (less than 1s for the full test on a fully loaded machine). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (7 preceding siblings ...) 2013-12-17 13:32 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2013-12-17 13:54 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2014-02-03 16:05 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org ` (25 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2013-12-17 13:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> --- Created attachment 31459 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31459&action=edit test without the complex instances The running time fluctuates between 1.6 and 7.5s on an unloaded machine. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (8 preceding siblings ...) 2013-12-17 13:54 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2014-02-03 16:05 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-02-03 16:21 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org ` (24 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-02-03 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target|x86_64-apple-darwin13 |x86_64-apple-darwin13, | |sparc-sun-solaris2.10 CC| |ro at gcc dot gnu.org Host|x86_64-apple-darwin13 |x86_64-apple-darwin13, | |sparc-sun-solaris2.10 Build|x86_64-apple-darwin13 |x86_64-apple-darwin13, | |sparc-sun-solaris2.10 --- Comment #9 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I see the same issue on some Solaris 10/SPARC systems on UltraSPARC T2: The 32-bit -O0 test execution takes between an 12 min and an hour: yoda apoc mayon real 30:46.09 11.80 39.49 user 1:01:31.87 20.12 1:18.84 sys 0.25 1.91 0.07 The first numbers (yoda) are for 1.2 GHz UltraSPARC T2 running Solaris 10, the second set (apoc) for 1.35 GHz UltraSPARC IV running Solaris 11, and the third set (mayon) for 1.2 GHz UltraSPARC T2 running Solaris 11. When I run the tests manually, I see that only a few tests are very slow: complex_double_add_overflow, complex_double_sub_overflow, complex_double_mul_overflow, complex_double_div_overflow, and some more. Even if I reduce the test to just the complex_double_add_overflow case, it takes yoda mayon real 2:04.11 0.33 user 4:08.14 0.60 sys 0.03 0.01 Timing on mayon is quite varied, though, some runs taking 12.83 s. Running the test under plockstat to check for locking issues, the picture changes again: yoda between 5.48 s and 1:10.00 min, mayon between 10.14 s and 56.27 s. Not very conclusive yet; maybe something changes with adapting libatomic/config/posix/lock.c (PAGE_SIZE and CACHLINE_SIZE) to values appropriate for Solaris/SPARC. Rainer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (9 preceding siblings ...) 2014-02-03 16:05 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-02-03 16:21 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-02-05 14:12 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ` (23 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: iains at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-02-03 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #9) > I see the same issue on some Solaris 10/SPARC systems on UltraSPARC T2: do you use the default mutex-based implementation for lib atomic? (I suspect that this is where the darwin slowness originates) if I configure --with-cpu=core2 (which allows 16b exchanges) the time drops from ~50m => 5m with the complex double tests dominating as you have. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (10 preceding siblings ...) 2014-02-03 16:21 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-02-05 14:12 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2014-02-05 14:56 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org ` (22 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2014-02-05 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> --- > --- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #9) >> I see the same issue on some Solaris 10/SPARC systems on UltraSPARC T2: > > do you use the default mutex-based implementation for lib atomic? I do, since this is the only option on SPARC. > (I suspect that this is where the darwin slowness originates) > > if I configure --with-cpu=core2 (which allows 16b exchanges) the time drops > from ~50m => 5m with the complex double tests dominating as you have. Even that seems to require ifunc support, which isn't supported on Solaris even with gld. Rainer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (11 preceding siblings ...) 2014-02-05 14:12 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2014-02-05 14:56 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-02-05 14:59 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ` (21 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: iains at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-02-05 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #11) > > --- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > > (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #9) > >> I see the same issue on some Solaris 10/SPARC systems on UltraSPARC T2: > > > > do you use the default mutex-based implementation for lib atomic? > > I do, since this is the only option on SPARC. Do you repeat the findings we see on Darwin, where a heavily loaded system does not exhibit the slow-down? I was part-way through investigating whether spin locks would be a better solution for these very short code-segements. Essentially, the duration should only be a few insns. Available time is ever the killer. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (12 preceding siblings ...) 2014-02-05 14:56 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-02-05 14:59 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2014-02-05 15:06 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org ` (20 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2014-02-05 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> --- > --- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- [...] > Do you repeat the findings we see on Darwin, where a heavily loaded system does > not exhibit the slow-down? no, I see it both on unloaded and heavily loaded systems. Even on an idle system, the runtime varies by a magnitude or more. Rainer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (13 preceding siblings ...) 2014-02-05 14:59 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2014-02-05 15:06 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-02-05 15:11 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ` (19 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: iains at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-02-05 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #13) > > --- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > [...] > > Do you repeat the findings we see on Darwin, where a heavily loaded system does > > not exhibit the slow-down? > > no, I see it both on unloaded and heavily loaded systems. Even on an > idle system, the runtime varies by a magnitude or more. so the open question is whether there's a fault in the fall-back solution - or whether it's fundamentally incapable of delivering reasonable performance (at least on some non-linux platforms). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (14 preceding siblings ...) 2014-02-05 15:06 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-02-05 15:11 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2014-02-05 18:22 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ` (18 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2014-02-05 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> --- > --- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #13) [...] > so the open question is whether there's a fault in the fall-back solution - or > whether it's fundamentally incapable of delivering reasonable performance (at > least on some non-linux platforms). I don't think so: on identical hardware, the test performs reasonably well on Solaris 11, but is sometimes slow as molasses on Solaris 10. Rather looks like a libc bug there. Rainer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (15 preceding siblings ...) 2014-02-05 15:11 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2014-02-05 18:22 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2014-02-05 18:23 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ` (17 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2014-02-05 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> --- > Even that seems to require ifunc support, which isn't supported on Solaris > even with gld. AFAICR ifunc is not supported on darwin. I have posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-02/msg00228.html the results (serial tests) for x86_64-apple-darwin13 configured with '--with-arch=core2 --with-cpu=core' and the failures are still there. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (16 preceding siblings ...) 2014-02-05 18:22 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2014-02-05 18:23 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2014-03-31 9:13 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ` (16 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2014-02-05 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> --- Created attachment 32056 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32056&action=edit sampling of one of the runs. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (17 preceding siblings ...) 2014-02-05 18:23 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2014-03-31 9:13 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-03-31 9:55 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org ` (15 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-03-31 9:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|P3 |P1 --- Comment #18 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- sparc-sun-solaris2.10 is a primary arch, making P1 for now. As sparc implements the hook Joseph mentions is this merely a testsuite issue (sparc being "slow")? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (18 preceding siblings ...) 2014-03-31 9:13 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-03-31 9:55 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-03-31 10:25 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ` (14 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: iains at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-03-31 9:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18) > sparc-sun-solaris2.10 is a primary arch, making P1 for now. As sparc > implements > the hook Joseph mentions is this merely a testsuite issue (sparc being > "slow")? In Darwin's case, I don't believe it is (simply) a test-suite issue; Rather it is connected with the implementation of pthread-based locking in libatomic when entities larger than those natively-supported are used. So, for example, if libatomic is configured to use a machine supporting cmpxchg16b, then test-time drops from 50mins -> 1min (c.f. configuring without cmpxchg16b). Probing the stalled cases, shows that things are stuck in mutex code. I started looking at the (default) posix implementation of the locking in libatomic (partly to see if there was a more BSD-esque way to do it). However, I'm out of time for the next couple of weeks. Two things (in the posix libatomic implementation) that might bear more examination: 1) adjacent entities that happen to fall within one cache line size (which would apply to two 32byte numbers stored consecutively, for x86) get the same hash ID. I wonder if that can introduce a vulnerability. 2) If the alignment of an entity is < its size, AFAICT the entity could span two hash IDs without this being detected [the evaluation is carried out modulo size without considering alignment]. === On darwin it's possible to resolve the issue by replacing the pthread_mutex_lock()s with while ((err = pthead_mutex_trylock(…)) != 0) if (err == …) abort(); .. which might indicate an underlying issue with the implementation of pthreads (or it might simply modify the behaviour enough to cause some other vulnerability to be hidden). -- I don't know if the same approach (spinning on try lock) would resolve the issue on Solaris, or (particularly) how to interpret the findings yet. >From gcc-bugs-return-447924-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Mar 31 09:56:23 2014 Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-447924-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org> Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 21058 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2014 09:56:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org> List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/> List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org> Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 21000 invoked by uid 48); 31 Mar 2014 09:56:19 -0000 From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug debug/60655] [4.9 Regression] ICE: output_operand: invalid expression as operand Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:56:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: debug X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: priority Message-ID: <bug-60655-4-57hAvKCuFz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-60655-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-60655-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-03/txt/msg02793.txt.bz2 Content-length: 1845 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|P3 |P1 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #7) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > > As discussed yesterday with Ramana on IRC, my suggested fix for this for 4.9 > > is something like: > > --- gcc/dwarf2out.c 2014-03-03 08:24:14.841895755 +0100 > > +++ gcc/dwarf2out.c 2014-03-26 10:42:32.027508796 +0100 > > @@ -11326,7 +11326,12 @@ const_ok_for_output_1 (rtx *rtlp, void * > > } > > > > if (GET_CODE (rtl) != SYMBOL_REF) > > - return 0; > > + { > > + /* NOT is not handled by output_addr_const. */ > > + if (GET_CODE (rtl) == NOT) > > + return 1; > > + return 0; > > + } > > > > In addition looks like we need to handle > > (minus (const_int) (sym_ref)) because with the reduced testcase with -g and > removing the -fdata-sections I get an error with > > const ( minus (323) (sym_ref)) and gas won't grok that because there is no > relocation that will deal with this. Note that (minus 323 sym_ref) is canonicalized (plus (neg sym_ref) 323) but it looks like this needs to go through some legitimize hook before handing it to output_addr_const? > > (note 220 219 221 5 (var_location r2 (plus:SI (plus:SI (reg:SI 3 r3 > [orig:192 ivtmp.37 ] [192]) > (symbol_ref:SI ("*.LANCHOR0") [flags 0x182])) > (const:SI (minus:SI (const_int 323 [0x143]) > (symbol_ref:SI ("*.LANCHOR0") [flags 0x182]))))) > NOTE_INSN_VAR_LOCATION) > > Uggh this is proving to be more ugly. >From gcc-bugs-return-447925-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Mar 31 09:56:49 2014 Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-447925-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org> Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 21799 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2014 09:56:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org> List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/> List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org> Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 21737 invoked by uid 48); 31 Mar 2014 09:56:46 -0000 From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/60656] [4.8/4.9 regression] x86 vectorization produces wrong code Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:56:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.3 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: priority Message-ID: <bug-60656-4-QWHdzpFcuj@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-60656-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-60656-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-03/txt/msg02794.txt.bz2 Content-length: 290 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id`656 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|P3 |P2 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (19 preceding siblings ...) 2014-03-31 9:55 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-03-31 10:25 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-03-31 11:14 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ` (13 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-03-31 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > sparc-sun-solaris2.10 is a primary arch, making P1 for now. As sparc > implements > the hook Joseph mentions is this merely a testsuite issue (sparc being > "slow")? Yes, it passes on my machines, except if they are under heavy load, please downgrade this back to P3. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (20 preceding siblings ...) 2014-03-31 10:25 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-03-31 11:14 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-04-22 11:36 ` [Bug target/59305] [4.9/4.10 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ` (12 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-03-31 11:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|P1 |P4 --- Comment #21 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Then it's P4 for x86_64-apple-darwin13. Please file a separate bug for the -sparc case then. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9/4.10 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (21 preceding siblings ...) 2014-03-31 11:14 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-04-22 11:36 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-07-16 13:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ` (11 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-04-22 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.9.1 --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- GCC 4.9.0 has been released ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9/4.10 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (22 preceding siblings ...) 2014-04-22 11:36 ` [Bug target/59305] [4.9/4.10 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-07-16 13:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-09-14 17:12 ` [Bug target/59305] [4.9/5 " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ` (10 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-07-16 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|4.9.1 |4.9.2 --- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- GCC 4.9.1 has been released. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9/5 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (23 preceding siblings ...) 2014-07-16 13:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-09-14 17:12 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2014-10-30 10:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ` (9 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2014-09-14 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> --- For the record, this PR is not fixed by the patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg01127.html. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9/5 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (24 preceding siblings ...) 2014-09-14 17:12 ` [Bug target/59305] [4.9/5 " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2014-10-30 10:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-26 19:59 ` [Bug target/59305] [4.9/5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ` (8 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-10-30 10:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|4.9.2 |4.9.3 --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- GCC 4.9.2 has been released. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (25 preceding siblings ...) 2014-10-30 10:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-06-26 19:59 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-26 20:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ` (7 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-06-26 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- GCC 4.9.3 has been released. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (26 preceding siblings ...) 2015-06-26 19:59 ` [Bug target/59305] [4.9/5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-06-26 20:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-10-01 15:13 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ` (6 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-06-26 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|4.9.3 |4.9.4 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (27 preceding siblings ...) 2015-06-26 20:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-10-01 15:13 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-10-01 15:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ` (5 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: clyon at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-10-01 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #27 from Christophe Lyon <clyon at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I've noticed timeouts on aarch64 too, where the hook is implemented IIUC. Run-time varies a lot too: from 5 minutes to ~1h, with the same binary, same machine, where I am the only user. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/59305] [4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (28 preceding siblings ...) 2015-10-01 15:13 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-10-01 15:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-05-14 9:47 ` [Bug libgcc/59305] [9/10/11/12 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ` (4 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-10-01 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #28 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #27) > I've noticed timeouts on aarch64 too, where the hook is implemented IIUC. > > Run-time varies a lot too: from 5 minutes to ~1h, with the same binary, same > machine, where I am the only user. Me too on a ThunderX, I thought it was due to an hardware errata too (where load acquire was not a memory barrier after a store release). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcc/59305] [9/10/11/12 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (29 preceding siblings ...) 2015-10-01 15:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-05-14 9:47 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-06-01 8:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ` (3 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-05-14 9:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|8.5 |9.4 --- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- GCC 8 branch is being closed. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcc/59305] [9/10/11/12 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (30 preceding siblings ...) 2021-05-14 9:47 ` [Bug libgcc/59305] [9/10/11/12 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-06-01 8:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-05-27 9:35 ` [Bug libgcc/59305] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ` (2 subsequent siblings) 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-06-01 8:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5 --- Comment #35 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcc/59305] [10/11/12/13 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (31 preceding siblings ...) 2021-06-01 8:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-27 9:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-06-28 10:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-07 10:30 ` [Bug libgcc/59305] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-27 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|9.5 |10.4 --- Comment #36 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- GCC 9 branch is being closed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcc/59305] [10/11/12/13 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (32 preceding siblings ...) 2022-05-27 9:35 ` [Bug libgcc/59305] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-06-28 10:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-07 10:30 ` [Bug libgcc/59305] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-06-28 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|10.4 |10.5 --- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcc/59305] [11/12/13/14 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ` (33 preceding siblings ...) 2022-06-28 10:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-07-07 10:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 34 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-07-07 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|10.5 |11.5 --- Comment #38 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- GCC 10 branch is being closed. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-07-07 10:30 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 36+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-11-26 17:54 [Bug target/59305] New: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-11-26 18:17 ` [Bug target/59305] " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-11-27 8:57 ` [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-11-27 15:58 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com 2013-12-16 20:43 ` howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-12-16 20:44 ` howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-12-16 20:46 ` howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-12-16 21:13 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-12-17 13:32 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-12-17 13:54 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2014-02-03 16:05 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-02-03 16:21 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-02-05 14:12 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2014-02-05 14:56 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-02-05 14:59 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2014-02-05 15:06 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-02-05 15:11 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2014-02-05 18:22 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2014-02-05 18:23 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2014-03-31 9:13 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-03-31 9:55 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-03-31 10:25 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-03-31 11:14 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-04-22 11:36 ` [Bug target/59305] [4.9/4.10 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-07-16 13:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-09-14 17:12 ` [Bug target/59305] [4.9/5 " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2014-10-30 10:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-26 19:59 ` [Bug target/59305] [4.9/5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-26 20:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-10-01 15:13 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-10-01 15:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-05-14 9:47 ` [Bug libgcc/59305] [9/10/11/12 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-06-01 8:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-05-27 9:35 ` [Bug libgcc/59305] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-06-28 10:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-07 10:30 ` [Bug libgcc/59305] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).